Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al qaeda has been decimated? in her statement, here, on this program. al qaeda has not been decimated. they are on the rise. they are all over iraq. training camps are in libya. they are all overseer ye syria on the rise in the middle east and there's a lot of questions for ambassador rice and i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: but you are saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. just as she said. but, she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who, on -- in a debate with mitt romney, said that he had said it was a terrorist attack and he hadn't and in fact that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of an attack it was and continued to say -- >> he said in an interview with "60 minutes" which we didn't see -- >> didn't see until after the election, i'm sure that it was such an inconsequential st
interviews saying that the obama administration has decimated al qaeda. what senator ayotte and other senators have said is that was misleading because she knew in a classified way that al qaeda might have been behind it. so that is what one -- two of the reasons why at least senator ayotte said that she is troubled. and she said that she is still not ready to say that she will vote for her. not only that, but she's still -- she still has a threat to block her nomination if susan rice is nominated. >> and is that the end of it, or are there future meetings? is there going to be more consultation, or is that that? >> reporter: no, that is not that. that is the beginning of this for sure. we understand that the ambassador is likely to be back later today for more meetings. ted barrett heard from the republican from tennessee that he has a meeting with susan rice tomorrow. again, just like today's meeting. that was at the request of susan rice. she is definitely making the rounds. she's trying to explain herself. but at least with these three republican senators this morning who were --
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
that very save vacuum and hamas, hezbollah, al qaeda, this is where the president has faltered. if the former cia director was in cairo, the former cia director in lebanon, communications were occurring with hamas and egypt, we would not be seeing the attack on the level we have now. cheryl: they you think benjamin netanyahu if he made this move now in advance of continuing tensions from iran because of the weapons cache found in the gaza strip. it is believe the iranians are behind some of the shipping of those missiles as well as the lebanese. do you think benjamin netanyahu news this and the reason he is making this move is because iran will be an issue six months or nine months from now? >> you are hitting it right on the head. israel is in a difficult position. no matter what they do there will be blood involved. it would be to the benefit to take on hamas. of hezbollah steps in take iman, when they address iran down the road regarding nuclear devices i guarantee you iran will push the buttons of hamas and hezbollah to rain thousands of missiles down on israel and you have
that's islamic jihad or that's al qaeda or something else. total and complete cessation of all hostile activity initiated from the gaza strip. hamas controls gaza. they are responsible for gaza. >> will you ease the blockade of grauz as a result of this agreement? >> the thing is, wolf, over the last few years we've had a gradual lifting of restrictions, slow and steady, incremental, but a slow and steady process of easing restrictions. now, here you've got to put cause and effect in the right order. we only impose restrictions because of the hostility, because of the rockets, because of the violence, because of the terrorism. if the border is quiet, that enables us to be more forthcoming and arrangements agreed with egyptians say we'll start talking from tomorrow about a process to work on those issues. >> is there an agreement that the u.s. will now help egypt prevent smuggling of weapons into gaza from -- >> well, you saw what the bhous put out, and that for us is a big issue because we don't want to see hamas, and that's one of the issues that we'll be discussing in the coming days
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)